More handpicked essays just for you.
Formal theories of the rule of law
Formal theories of the rule of law
Courts role in the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil.
Most people would dispute that the significance of law in society is to obtain justice, however justice is simply a term which is determined subjectively, it relates to an individuals
This theory is concerned with procedures, it focuses on the way the law is created and applied, proposing that the rule of law is upheld in a situation when good procedures are followed. As Lord Bingham suggested, this theory cannot be regarded as observing the rule of law, as citizens human rights are disregarded if good procedures are followed in the process. Joseph Raz puts forwards his formal theory of the rule of law, stating that; “All laws should be prospective, open and clear”, any vague areas of the law are likely to result in a breach of the law. Laws are also required to be “relatively stable” and to not undergo continual changes which will ultimately result in civilians being unaware of their boundaries and legal limits within the state. Raz also states that “the principles of natural justice must be observed” and that “the courts should have review powers to ensure conformity of the law”, however, the formal theory shows no regard of “natural justice” as it is a theory concerned with the procedures followed and not the content of the law, so therefore there is weakness in Raz’s theory of the rule of law. Therefore the formal theory of the rule of law engenders to unjust situations which may be justified if good procedures are implemented when making the law. Nonetheless, Raz upholds the notion that the substantive theory is inadequate as
The UK courts obtain the power to decide whether the governmental authority has acted ‘Ultra Vires’. This ensures they do not act outside limits of their legal power, this includes both formal and substantive grounds. Both proportionality and natural justice are crucial components for judicial review of a case and therefore, formal and substantive elements are required to set out laws. There seems to be no compelling reason that this may not also be the most salient solution for the rule of law, however in my opinion, good procedures are not as rewarding as the laws content when it concerns the publics lives and
The Rule of Law has always been a widely discussed topic throughout the history of modern political thinking. It can be defined as, “the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law” (Dictionary.com). English philosopher John Locke and Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau have both developed well-rounded and detailed accounts on the Rule of Law and its crucial role in ensuring democracy and freedom in society. Despite the undeniable success and importance of their works and ideas, I believe ________ constructed a more persuasive and influential argument in explaining the extensive effects of the Rule of Law on government and society.
The focus of this essay is to examine the extent to which Dworkin provides a convincing alternative to positivism. The central claim of legal positivism states that "in any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits". Dworkin completely rejects the positivist approach because he believes that "no combination of source-based rules, no matter how broadly construed or how carefully crafted can ground a theory of law". Dworkin is evidently making a big move away from positivism. The first part of this essay will explore how Dworkin 's rejection of positivism has led him to formulate an alternative theory of law. The final part of the essay will analyse how Dworkin has failed in getting an
The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to make it. In some cases an approach that gives slightly more emphasis to the text may be seen to be more in line with the judiciary’s constitutional position. The law is written in the words of the statutes, and Parliament has an obligation to express law correctly. The role of the court courts is not to ensure that Parliament hits the target every time, especially when the legislation does not clearly display those targets.
The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.
Culver, Keith Charles. Readings in the philosophy of law. 1999. Reprint. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2008. Print.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
In contrary to its contemporary antagonist philosophical schools, who advocate the practices of humanness and the rightness and set ideal of the past, the Legalists, in their complete rejection of the traditional ethics, embraces the efficacy of political power and uphold a society of laws and punishments. As the old feudal states decayed and the smoke of endemic warfare suffused, the need for a more rational government that can afford greater centralized power so as to strengthen a state against its rival increased substantially among the Warring States. Such a rising urge necessitated the emergence of the Legalists and further predetermined the Legalists’ inherent nature – realistic, totalitarian and problem-solving – which, with the realization of its significance and duty in the stream of history, finds its hegemonic character as well.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
The concept of ‘the rule of law’ has been discussed by many. Professor Geoffrey Walker in his 1988 paper wrote ‘…most of the content of the rule of law can be summed up in two points: (1) that the people (including, one should add, the government) should be ruled by the law and obey it and (2) that the law should be such that people will be able (and, one should add, willing) to be guided by it’.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
A major impediment of the common is the tendency to lead to perpetuity of bad decisions once a precedent has been set. If there is no amendment and the same ruling is applied, that bad decision will be subsist and will be perpetuated. Since the common law system revolves around following antecedents, it usually takes a long while for change to occur. Unfortunately, before this change is effected, the bad decision will be upheld as long as the change does not come into effect. This is one area where the codified system of law has an advantage as it is rules based approach to law making designed to provide a comprehensive code of laws for the area in question.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
The rule of law is thought to be one of the most fundamental doctrines of the constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom. The distinctive UK‘s constitution has influences previously on the judicial system too. Government and the legal systems in history have both been involved in rules and discretion and most of all the elimination of all discretionary power in which both of these are impossible and unwanted. The rule of law means in one sense, government by the law but obviously government is by the people as well as by the law. As soon as the governing people are added in, the government can’t then be by law on there own. Although the situation is not undoubtedly as the making of particular laws can be guided by open and relatively stable general laws that have been made. For the Rule of Law to have meaning in a democratic society, it has to mean that those who run it have comply with it for it to work; there must be no room for an “ends justifies the means”
Rawl’s principles were found justified by visualizing real people forming a system of laws including the ramifications of a “justified complaint”. A justified complaint is an accusation by a member of society against another member of society. To have a system of justice the society must have means of answering the beckoning of the populace. If a society does not attend to the offense of its own people then it is not a true society. Society is based on the principle of a consensus unanimously choosing their governing rules and laws. However the limitations of a “justified complaint” are unclear depending on what the consensus agrees to. Though the one rule that must apply is the fact that a complaint must be made by a law abider to be a “justified complaint”.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...